It appears to mean that the plan would have dedicated lanes on the Howard Frankland (and presumably the previously announced Westshore to downtown stretch) but still run on the shoulders or in full traffic elsewhere. The biggest problem with the plan (though it is a problem) is not the express lanes on the Howard Frankland. Even bigger, for us, is the reliance on highway shoulders. So what is he proposing?

If you could do that, it would be interesting. However, 1) there is no indication you can have truly (meaning without any other vehicles ever using them) exclusive bus lanes in the shoulder and, if you can, that it would be safe and 2) then there would not be any shoulders and any problem on the interstate would be that much worse (problems like here, here, and here which, as we noted recently, happen routinely around here).

Moreover, if the buses run in the median and then have stops on local streets, you either need expensive ramps to get off the interstate or the buses have to cross the congested traffic. And, given that in much of the area, the “median” is really an inner shoulder, the same issues apply to the median.

And, regarding full-time, exclusive use of the shoulder, can it even be done? From URBN Tampa Bay:

We did an admittedly quick search and could not find an official document that said full-time shoulder use was not allowed (which is not to say one does not exist; we just did not find it), but we did find a Federal Highway administration guidance document on bus on shoulder operation that was exclusively about part-time usage and stated pretty clearly:

(you can get it in pdf form here) In other words, if you have full-time, exclusive lanes for buses on the shoulder, for safety, you would need to build a new shoulder. (The document explains that the best bus on shoulder practice is basically Minnesota’s policy which we discuss here. Hint – it is part-time usage) For obvious reasons, not having shoulders that emergency vehicles, crashes and broken down cars, not to mention cars that are pulled over, can use is a bad idea.

But, even if you could do it, there is more. We listed five obvious issues (other than frequency, funding, and synchronizing with the local bus services) that arise from the “BRT” plan:

This is not BRT

Running buses in the shoulder is problematic

The connections to activity centers is weak

Running a system in/on the interstate is definitely not optimal

The plan will not promote transit oriented development

Even if you run the buses in dedicated shoulders, while you may partially address number 1, you do not solve 2-5 (the problem with the shoulder is there is no shoulder). And you do not solve frequency, funding, and local bus services.

That is one thing we agree with, though real BRT would run mostly in arterial roads with proper stops in the heart of activity centers to help develop ToD. That is the way to address many of the issues above.

— About Those Options

If that was not enough, an article in the Business Journal based on a discussion with the lead engineer or the study and the TBARTA CEO raised more questions than it answered. First,

Setting aside that the “BRT” plan will not create a real spine, getting people to where they are going is a problem. As we have noted, this whole plan is based on the premise that somehow people get to the “BRT” (which would require redoing local bus service), ride the “BRT”, then get to their destination using another connection. While the article list some local connection possibilities in downtown St. Pete, downtown Tampa, and Westshore, those all need planning, frequency, and funding, the last two of which local systems have lacked for years. And that does not include getting people to the “BRT” from where they live so they can get to activity centers. (And circulators are nice, but having a line that runs closer to/into more activity centers to which people can just walk is even better.)

It needs to be made clear that the “BRT” plan really serves commuters travelling a good distance to get to work, not local travelers. For the “BRT” to really work, all the feeders must be in place, not just at destination but to get people to the “BRT” in the first place. So, in reality, the “BRT” and the local connection all form part of one big plan. A proper system would have more direct local transit connections to and from the line, especially in residential areas. Leaving it up to the counties to plan out in the future is quite the act of faith.

But we knew that. Even more interesting for us is this because it gets to the process and discussion:

Setting aside that the CSX tracks run throughout the area and any system using them could be expanded in phases throughout the region (and what is a regional transit study that does not study an obvious regional transit idea?), a few weeks ago, we were told this:

That certainly strongly implies that the CSX route could be included in the transit plan. Even more telling was that the CSX line was included in the Regional Transit Study, and not just initially. It was part of the big reveal of the “BRT” plan. (See here) and later (See here) If the CSX line could not be in the regional transit plan, why was it included in the study? Was the CSX analysis just to set up a cost argument for the bus plan?

And saying that other ideas could be included in the plan is all well and good. What are the options? If not CSX, what? What are the criteria for a project being included? Does it have to cross a county line immediately or can it be part of the phased approach?

We get the cost argument of the “BRT” plan versus the CSX line. (We don’t think it is dispositive, but we get it – the “BRT” plan is cheap.) We get the political point that it is easier to get Pinellas to support something that runs in Pinellas over something just in Hillsborough. However, based on the study itself and the statements of the engineers, the CSX argument above makes no sense and makes one wonder.

— BRT the Letter

The Times featured a letter/column from the some leaders of the Tampa and St. Pete Chambers of Commerce on the “BRT” plan. While it should be noted that both organizations have a history of adopting a “just do something, anything” approach, the letter makes their case, so we will discuss it (you can read the whole thing here).

Actually, the first step was to study a bunch of historical studies, not our present condition, to identify which of the corridors identified in the previous studies would be able to give us the cheapest plan, or at least get us under the $10/ride threshold. But, anyway, we will agree that we need transit. That is not the question. The question is whether the “BRT” plan proposed is what we need. Here is why they say the plan is good:

BRT may present a reasonable starting point, but the proposed plan is not BRT. Setting that aside, let’s look at the points:

First, affordable – it is cheap.

Second, it is regional, which it is.

Third, it is timely, meaning we would not need to buy right of way, which is true, but is just another way of saying it is cheap.

Fourth, yes, many people live near the interstate but what reason would most have for using this service when it is not clear how it connects to local bus systems and feeder routes; it is not clear that it will be frequent; it does not actually go to a number of activity centers; and it will not create TOD? So we give them the number of people nearby with those caveats (Plus it does not say they are within ½ mile of a station, just the route).

We agree – progress has not happened. And we agree that companies that are considering moving to our area look for transit, but we think they are looking at the quality of transit and the willingness to invest in the improvement of the area. We question whether this “BRT” plan as the core system will have any effect on their decision-making.

Finally, we will reiterate: if a “catalyst” project 1) is not planned and executed exceptionally well and 2) is promoted by creating inflated expectations that stand little chance of being realized, it will catalyze nothing but opposition to future projects. Right now, the “BRT” proposal runs the risk of checking both those boxes.

— Conclusion

After all the new discussion, the fact remains that the main thing going for the “BRT” plan is that it is cheap. Simply saying it is a catalyst does not make it so. Moreover, especially after the CSX comments, there are no known additional plans or next phases to be included. Additionally, the relative silence about reorganizing and funding feeder systems (not just local circulators around business districts) is a major issue that is not being addressed. To even for this plan to work properly, feeders have to be considered as part of the plan. We need a coordinated, synchronized system.

We could support a well thought out, proper, “gold standard” (a term that has been apparently been dropped) BRT plan (even if it BRT is not our preference for a spine). But, based on what we have been shown, this is not one. We maintain that the same basic service and catalyzing effect could be served by a substantially cheaper plan that does not create false hopes and sure to be dashed expectations of having real transit solution, while, at the same time, the region works on real transit.

– The Half Fix

FDOT is moving ahead with the partial interim fix to the previous interim fix to the obvious numerous bottlenecks it built around the airport/Howard Frankland.

As we have long said, they should just keep the four lanes going all the way through on I-275. Adding one lane would keep a bottleneck, though not quite as bad as now.

As for Memorial Highway, one of the biggest problems is the need to keep changing lanes to get where you want to go. This plan will not fix that, but whatever. It would just be nice if FDOT stop having interim fixes that keep our area under construction.

Enough with the “leveraging.” These project do not leverage anything. FDOT is half-fixing poorly designed, inadequate roads at a point of congestion which exists, in large part, because there already is a high job concentration.

— Streetcar

Last week we discussed the plan to extend the streetcar to the Heights. This week:

Regardless of what you think about the “BRT” plan, that is reasonable. As important, if not more, is the need to address the failings of the streetcar, which is too slow, too infrequent, and too expensive as it is (especially if you plan on having people connect from a bus ride they just paid for).

Some may say he is just trying to promote his development. Of course he wants his development to be successful, but there is nothing wrong with that. And he is right about giving people a reason to stay. Implicit in his comment is that we are still lacking in that area. But he added:

While he is focusing on entrepreneurialism, the point can be applied more broadly. The fact is that this area has many positive attributes, but is often hamstrung by inertia, complacency, and settling. We are happy that the Lightning owner is out there pushing.

Downtown/Channel District – Getting Going

Speaking of the Lightning owner, there was new about the Water Street JW Marriott:

In other words, there are a lot of people; there will be more; and there are a lot of people who come to Hillsborough each day. The really obvious conclusion is that Hillsborough needs much better and more diverse transit options (not just an express bus). But there is something else:

First, the “urban core” of Hillsborough County is very small and pretty much all within the city limits of Tampa. Even Tampa has a relatively small, if growing, “urban” core. Most of it is built in a suburban fashion. Essentially, all of Hillsborough County’s development is also suburban, if not exurban. Hillsborough County needs to create an urban core before it considers expanding it.

That is a good idea, but reducing the trips would require rethinking how the area is developed, creating a more urban design rather than sprawling subdivisions with limited entrances/exits on arterial roads, and more mixed use development. Those are things the County Commission has been loath to do, even though the reality is that if there is better use of land, there will be less need for more infrastructure. It will save money and save land.

Because there is basically no urban land in Brandon, it cannot be built out, but we will set that aside for a minute and just talk about suburban land. Brandon (and most of the rest of the County) is not built out. Much of the land is underused – much of it parking. Proper redevelopment of underused land could accommodate much of the growth. Certainly, if the County continues to allow 1980s building patterns, the mess will continue. Once again, note:

They should reconsider. There is no reason to expand the developable area. All that will lead to is more of the same and we will be back, having the same discussion in a few years. The County Commission has spent years promoting poor planning, poor development, subsidizing residential and retail, and underinvestment in proper transportation throwing the burden on local taxpayers. We do not need more of that. We need good planning that promotes and incentivizes more density and infill to use the infrastructure we have. We need the County to stop approving bigger development outside the urban service area. We need proper transit.

And if you are not going to make it better, at least stick to the mediocre plan for once.

Westshore-ish – Midtown Officially Announced

A few weeks ago, we discussed what was then known as Tampa Bay 1. (See “Westhore-ish – Tampa Bay 1”) Last week it was officially announced as “Midtown.”

If you have been to an Open Streets event, it is quite clear that the best place to do them is where there is something to do along the route where people can stop and interact. While it is pretty, there are not a lot of activities along Bayshore. Likewise, New Tampa would not really be a good location. Ybor City or Tampa Heights (and other places in town, like Seminole Heights and West Tampa) would be better.

Once again, we like the idea. We just think Bayshore is not the best place for it.

Airport – A Small Sign

There was news last week regarding Lufthansa’s flight to Tampa (and reported this week by the Business Journalhere):

We are still trying to figure out the real cause of the rapid push to change the time in Florida (things usually do not pass the legislature with no real discussion and large bi-partisan margins). In any event, the Times had a good graphic presentation on the effect of the proposed time change here.